Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42 (some duplicates have been removed)
wishing to speak on something that is not on tonight's agenda. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. we would like note that mrs. avery's last day, and has been with the planning commission for 22 years. when commissioner fung was on the planning commission in the 90's. he must remember her well. and for the last years she's served as the executive secretary, and been doing double duty in the last years. we will miss her greatly, she's been a calming presence on the planning commission. and we wish her the best and taking over for her in the interim period is from the board of ape -- appeals. >> can you repeat? >> jonas (inaudible) will be the acting secretary. >> item 3, the consideration and possible adoption of the board minutes for the meeting of october 17, 2012. >> so moved. >> we have a motion to approve the minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none. call the roll please. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus, to adopt the october 17th minutes. fung. >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0. minutes adopte
at that particular meeting? >> yes. scott sanchez, planning department. so the standard procedure at the conditional use hearings is that the week before the hearing, staff prepares a case report with a draft motion. and then in this case, we would have be actually drafting conditions 1-7, forwarded that to the planning commission. at the hearing, the commission accepted the draft motion with the additional findings, 8-12. however, when staff finalized that motion and gave it the motion number and considered that the final action of the planning commission, they failed it include those additional conditions. >> if i went back to the minutes. >> the planning commission adopted the motion with those additional conditions and that was the oral action that they took at the hearing, but it wasn't reflected in the written decision because staff failed to add those into the motion. and they think at one point there was a certificate of appropriateness for 620 jones and one of the performs that we revieweded for the work did also have the certificate of appropriateness, but that would h
tried to keep up. and be as responsible as possible to keep up with the schedule. scott sanchez' august 28th letter of determination, which is being appealed now, he detailed the other two extensions that had been granted for this variance. he outlined that the first extension was due to time elapsed as the result of neighbors' appeals of the original garage permit. and he also oust outlined that the second extension was as a result of the delays of discretionary review hearing that was requested by neighbors for group housing performance. now we're delayed by another neighbor appeal. the planning department stopped work on the gulf stream as soon as the neighbor filed her appeal, essentially ensuring that the variance deadline would be impossible to meet. it is unfair to allow the neighbor's appeal of the zoning administrator's extension of the variance deadline to kill the project unilaterally without regard for the merits of the project. i believe this sets a bad precedent. i urge you to extend the variance deadline, to accommodate city delays and neighbor appeals. thank you for you
allow a hearing to be held. i i i am cynthia goldstein and we have scott sanchez, and joseph duffy, the senior building inspector here. and we are joined the taxi service commissioner. and if we could go over the guidelines. >> the board requests that you turn off phones and pagers. please continue conversations in the hallway. those representing have seven minutes to present the case and three minutes for rebuttals. members of the public not affiliated with the party, have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board with preparation of minutes, members of the public are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to the board staff when you come to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions, with survey forms on the left side of the podium as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting, or call the board in the morning. the board appeals offi
. >> let's hear the department first. >> okay. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department and i think this is a confusing issue especially talking about a variety of lot lines so i would like to go through historically the lot and it is proposals. this is from the 1946 block book and was constructed then and had the dwellings and this is 24th and this is dolores street. there were two lots and 32 and 33 and i believe they were vacant, so then in 1954 they sought approval for a variance from the planning commission because at this time variances were reviewed by the planning commission so they sought a variance for the dolores street lot and it's the lot in blue and create the lot and had the building on that lot. they proposed on the remainder of the lot and 75 and 50 and eight unit apartment building and that was denied by the planning commission in 1954. in 1955 they revised the proposal and came back to the planning department with a new proposal and three lots and contain two lots in the green and red and build new construction on both of those lots, and t
. scott sanchez planning department. this is located in a zoning direct that allows two -- >> two or three. >> two. historically it did contain three dwelling units so that was on the original block. it was block 6502 and equal 85 feet wide and 95 feet wide -- and it would be in violation of the planning code if they were to have retained that three unit building that was there, so as a condition of approval they sought a building permit to reduce the number of units from three to two but that got a final completion from the building of inspection. there are no subsequent units that add that back and doing so would be violation to the planning code and only allows two units on the property and the original lot was 11e so the title inspection -- i mean if they failed to go back any further than 20 years on the property -- or 30 years on the property that is more bit of issue for the title insurance company because it does have history before that. so they missed the other 85 years that the lot existed but it was clear it was roared on the mother lot. that lot was retired and new
the board . scott sanchez is here and representing the planning department and ethics -- >> >> planning commission and we have ed ris kin here and christine who is the director of the municipal services and taxis and have an officer from the san francisco police department permit bureau. if you could go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in progress. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and proceedings. please have conversations in the hallways. the rules are as follows representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. parties affiliated within these matters must be complete within that time and members of the public have three minutes to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board members who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to have a speaker card what you come to the podium. cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the left side of the podium. if you have a question ple
that have cases before the board tonight. scott sanchez is here and he is is zoning administrator representing the planning commission. joseph duffy is here, representing the department of building inspection and also joined from the environmental section of the department of public health. if you could go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that all turn off all cell phones and proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board holds the presentation are as follows. appellants and permit holders and department representatives have 7 minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals people affiliated with these parties must include the comments in the three or seven minute periods. the members who are not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, the members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not prior to present a card. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podiu
. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. just to reiterate, the exemption did include the full scope of work, there was an error in terms of stating that it was not within that portion. but, the appropriate scope was reviewed under that environmental review. it was clarified in an october e-mail that none of the findings had changed and not the certificate of exemption remained valid. so that would be appealable to the board of supervisors. those the board of asupervisors does regularly deal with the sequa appeals and i am available for any questions. >> commissioners? the matter is submitted. >> i wanted to confirm one thing, and i am not sure who it should be addressed. >> but a permit is not required to take down a tree on rec and park property? >> that is correct, commissioner. >> i have a question, of rec and park. you know, it is clear that the principle issue here relates to the trees and the removal that rec and park feels was in jurisdiction to do as it wishes. to the extend that you have a plan for the planting of new bushes or whatever it is that you
. >> is there anyone here representing the subject property owner? seeing no one, mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i wish i could just distract you by saying that giants are up 6-1 and leave it at that, but unfortunately, we failed the appellant and we failed the neighbors in properly doing our job. so i will outline the process of events here for the board. so in incidence of 2007 conditional use application was filed for the bar and restaurant called alths and there was a hearing in march of 2008. at this hearing there were neighbors that expressed concern about the operation of the outdoor activity area associated with the restaurant. so the planning commission did add additional conditions to the approval. we typically give draft motion and that draft motion had seven conditions. at the hearing the planning commission added five additional conditions, 8-12 that included closing the outdoor time at 12:00 a.m. and no amplified music except in cabanas was part of the proposal. no outdoor entertainment except twice a month before 7:00 p.m.also lighting couldn't caus
six minutes. >> thank you. scott sanchez [phr-rplts/]. planning department. in 2007 there was a building permit filed to document the legality of the building as a 3-unit building and that permit was never pursued and subsequently abandoned. there 2008 there was a building permit filed to again allow construction of the garage in the rear yard. and we did say we were going hold that until the [o-urpblgts/] question of outstanding question of the violation was dressed. in may of this year, a building permit application was filed in 2012, not 2010, for the garage. and staff was reviewing, we had a 2008 building permit for the garage and 2012 building permit for the garage and i believe on both mr. nales was listed as the licensed contractor for the project, at least according to the building permit records. and the 2012 permit did not match what was in the 2005 variance. so this kind of what mr. gladstone was talking about, maybe some confusion on the planning department's side, between may and july/august of this year because we had two permits from the project spons
were never done. >> okay. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is located in a zoning direct that allows two -- >> two or three. >> two. historically it did contain three dwelling units so that was on the original block.
. >> we can hear the rest of the rebuttal. >> sorry. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. so i like to show what is the map for the subject property and shows it's a two unit building. again it's record that is available to the appellants. in the highlighted it's showing two residential units and with the other two unit residential buildings that were built after it was subdivided pursuant to the zoning allowing two units on each of the lots so under the general plan we have the obligation to preserve and protect affordable housing. however we also have obligation to preserve neighborhood character and matters of density for the subject neighborhoods so in approving the subdivision it was very clear it was limited to two units because that's all the zoning allowed and i appreciate vice president fung's comments here. had there not been a subdivision associated with this and maybe ones of removed but in this case it was removed for the purpose for them to have development potential of subdivision and creating new lots so if that wasn't tided to it i would un
. sot scott sanchez pues dios, yo sentia la presencia y sentia que me iba a sacar de esa situacion. el eceptisismo de los medicos ha disminuido notoriamente. y la sicologia ha entrado a analizar estos milagros espirituales oscar cervantes sicologo clinico los estudios siguen encontrando que cuando las personas son creyentes se recuperan .. 9 26 el pronostico es mucho mejor sicologicamente que ocurre cuando un paciente aumenta su fe el autoestima sube, menos stresss, el sistema inmune se hace mas poderoso entonces. la fe cambia la quimica cerebral. sot endopamina, serotina, neurotransist ores trabajan mucho mejor cuando se da la religion muchos hospitales, lo doctores dicen que preparense.. en algunas ocasiones se han recuperado. southern medical journal en el 2010 el departemamen to de estudios religiosos de la universidad de indiana mediante un estudio mejoras de pacientes con problemas de vista y oido luego que se orara por ellos libro el experimento de la intencion la oficina de investigacion sobre oracion ha desarrollado 227 estudios serios, de los cuales, el 75% han mostrado los m
. >> >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department. i will be brief, it deals with the accessible path and rest room and drinking fountain just the work that was revised to the planning department that was subject to a exemption that was reviewed this year and there was an subsequent e-mail that clarified that the portion of it was within the ramp area but that did not change the department's evaluation. as the appellant has stated their concerns are not so much related to the rest rooms but the trees and the removal of the trees and have concerns related to the project on the california environmental quality act. the planning department determination is to the board of supervisors not this board. that is something that needs to be appealed to the board of supervisors. i think that the ramp is something that is a plan that is in development now, it is not a planning department plan, it is not something that we developed and implement and enforce. so when reviewing the applications we would not be reviewing it. it is something that the rec park is enforcing and we are doing the review f
. >> yes, ma'am, thanks? >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department, good news, the giants are up 8-1 now. in regard to vice president fung's comments or the question about the conditions of approval of it's prettyboilerplate 1-7. it doesn't really speak to the good neighbor gestures other than the community liaison, which it sounds like from the appellant he is the community liaison or his manager and anybody who approaches will be given contact information. so that would satisfy that requirement. there is recordation of the nsr. should implementation the project result in complaints from interested property owners, residents or commercial lessees not resolved and findly the zoning administrator to be in violation of the code or conditions of approval, we refer the use to the commission and they may seek to revoke the conditional use authorization and that could be another step to take it to them to revoke the cu. i think it's probably in everybody's interest that the cu be feeled to modify these conditions of approval. the authorization itself does not specif
. >> okay. thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good evening. scott sanchyes, sir planning department. i will be brief on three issues here that are planning-related. first the permit at hand which is for the storage shed and the planning department did review this and we do not have issues. we think the project is code-complying. the two other issues relate more to what occurred at previous hearings. first, in relationship to the archaeological questions, at the original hearing for the previous permit, which was i believe in late august, i was here. and at that hearing miss hobson had mention thated she contacted randall dean, who was the planning department staff and does archaeology. i spoke with him after the hearing and asked him if he was contacted by raj goldberg and he said he had and did not express my concerns at that time. he subsequently went on a long vacation, and i was on the same. i was not here for the hearing request before the board i think on september 19 and since coming back, i have tried to track down the answer to the question. and i have phot been able to speak
>>> final trades. >> sanchez energy. sm. >> freeport mcmoran. >>> scott, thank you. after a tough week last week, the bulls coming back stampede style. gangham style! look at the dow up big, 167 points. s&p and nasdaq virtually erasing last week's losses. >>> knock-knock. who's there? nobody. guess who isn't working with 42 days before we go off the fiscal cliff? congress! >>> with just about all attention focused on israel and hamas, maybe the markets and the world should focus on this rally in amman, jordan instead. see why this could shake up the reason beyond anyone's worst fears. >>> michelle is in for sue today at the nyse. welcome, michelle. >> hey, tyler. thanks. we got a nice triple digit rally today. going to start with a market alert on this big day for the markets. robert pisani, what's the story about why we're climbing today? >> nobody is around in congress to say anything bad about the fiscal cliff. everyone said, hey, we're looking good! president in bangkok said things are looking good. pelosi came out, representative pelosi, speaker of the house, said we can do a
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42 (some duplicates have been removed)